Learning styles in language learning

Chapter 2 Literature Review

In this chapter, the author briefly reviewed the literature related to this study. notion of learning styles including definition of the key terms, categories of learning styles, and Oxford’s theory on language learning styles were first reviewed. Then the author examined the gender and foreign language learning theories related to learning styles. Finally, the author reviewed previous studies that have been made on the relationship between learning styles and second or foreign language learning both abroad and home.

2.1 Theories Related to Learning Styles

This section includes definitions of different terms of learning styles, categories of learning styles and Oxford’s theory of language learning styles.

2.1.1 Different Terms Regarding Learning Styles

The definitions of styles and learning styles are first reviewed, and then cognitive styles and learning styles are differentiated in this part. Definitions of Styles and Learning Styles

  • Styles

Before reviewing the literature of learning styles, it is necessary to know the definition of “styles”. The concept of “styles” was first put forward by cognitive psychologists. Brown (2002: 104) defines style as “a term that refers to consistent and rather enduring tendencies or preferences within an individual.” Therefore, styles are those general characteristics of intellectual functioning (and personality type, as well) that especially pertain to one as an individual, that differentiate one from someone else.

  • Learning Styles

Regarding studies of learning styles, the most serious problem is the confusion of its definitions. In the past two decades, the learning styles has been used in various and sometimes confusing ways in the literature. It is very common to hear different opinions on its definitions based on different findings in this comparatively new research field of learning styles, for each study defines it from particular perspectives. However, there is not an agree-upon definition of learning styles. Learning styles can be defined in the following ways.

Keefe (1979, cited in Brown, 2002:10) defines learning styles as “the characteristic cognitive, affective and physiological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with and respond to the learning environment.”Dunn et al. (1978:11) defines learning styles as “the way in which each person absorbs and retains information and/or skills; regardless of how that process is described, it is dramatically different for each person”.

Sims & Sims (1990, cited in Reid, 2002) put forward that learning styles are typical ways a person behaves, feels, and processes information in learning situations. Therefore, learning style is demonstrated in that pattern of behavior and performance by which an individual approaches educational experience. Oxford et al. (1991) briefly defines the learning style as the general approaches students used to learn a new subject or tackle a new problem.

Claxton and Murrell (1987, cited in Eliason, 2002: 19-20) use an onion metaphor in which the layers of the onion represent “layers” of learning styles: basic personality characteristics form the core; information-processing characteristics form the second layer; social interaction characteristics form a third layer; instructional preferences form the fourth and outermost layer. Claxton and Murrell postulate that the core of the onion represents the most stable characteristics, with each successive layer being progressively more amenable to change.

Tan Dingliang (1995: 12) defines learning styles as: “the way that a learner often adopts in the learning process, which includes the learning strategies that have been stabilized within a learner, the preference of some teaching stimuli and learning tendency.”

Reid (1995) summarizes definitions of learning styles as internally based characteristics of individuals for the intake or understanding of new information. Essentially learning styles are based upon how a person perceives and processes information to facilitate learning. Among these definitions, Kinsella’ definition of learning styles is widely accepted (Reid, 2002). Kinsella (1994, cited in Reid, 2002) concludes that learning style is an individual’s natural, habitual, and preferred way(s) of absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills which persist regardless of teaching methods or content area. Kinsella also emphasizes that “everyone has a learning style, but each person’s is as unique as a signature. Each signature appears to be influenced by both nature and nurture; it is a biological and developmental set of characteristics.” (1994, cited in Reid, 2002: 171) Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles

The second problem about the study on learning styles is the confusion of the meanings of the terms of learning styles and cognitive styles as they are often used interchangeably in research. The clarification of the two terms will be helpful to better understand learning styles.

Messick’s (1984) definition of cognitive styles has been widely cited. He defines cognitive styles as “consistent individual differences in preferred ways of organizing and processing information and experience.” Cognitive styles are “characteristic self-consistent mode of functioning which individual shows in their perceptual and intellectual activities” (Stern, ! 983: 373). According to Tan Dingliang (1995) and Kang Shumin (2003), cognitive styles mainly refer to the ways of information processing, that is, individual’s typical ways of processing perception, memory and thinking.

Brown (2002: 104) suggests that “the way we learn things in general and the particular attack we make on a problem seem to hinge on a rather amorphous link between personality and cognition; this link is referred to as cognitive style”. According to Brown (2002), when cognitive styles are specially related to an educational context, where affective and physiological factors are intermingled, they are usually more generally referred to as learning styles. Thus from this perspective, learning styles are regarded as a subset of cognitive styles. Meanwhile, cognitive styles can sometimes be seen as a subset of learning styles. Keefe (1986) reports that learning styles include not only cognitive processes, but also integrate affective and physiological behaviors that assist learners to perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment.

Renzulli & David Yun Dai (2001) differentiate the two terms in detail: cognitive styles are mainly concerned in psychological domain, while learning styles are mainly proposed by researchers of educational field; researchers of cognitive styles adopt a more positive approach, whereas researchers of learning styles focus on a more phenomenological perspective. Regarding the methodology, performance-based measure is usually used by cognitive styles researchers, while self-report is the measure that learning styles researchers primarily use.

2.1.2 Categories of Learning Styles

Confusion also exists in the literature on categories of learning styles for many same or similar factors researched under the same name. Reid (1995) divides learning-style research into three major categories: cognitive styles, sensory learning styles, and personality learning styles. Cognitive Learning Styles

Cognitive learning styles which include field-independent/field-dependent, analytic/global, reflective/impulsive learning styles, and Kolb experiential learning model, belong to the aspects of psychology. Among them researches on field -independent/field-dependent (FI/FD) attract the most attention of SLA domain (Ellis, 1994).

According to Reid (1995), field-independent learners learn more effectively step by step, or sequentially, beginning with analyzing facts and proceeding to ideas. They see the trees instead of the forest; whereas field-dependent (field-sensitive) learners learn more effectively in contexts, holistically, intuitively, and are especially sensitive to human relationships and interactions. They see the forest instead of the trees. Chapelle (1995) explains that FI/FD refers to how people perceive and memorize information. Reid (1995) defines that analytic learners learn more effectively individually; prefer setting own goals, and respond to a sequential, linear, step-by-step presentation of materials; whereas global (relational) learners learn more effectively through concrete experience, and by interactions with others.

According to Reid (1995), if learners can learn more effectively given time to consider options before responding, they are reflective learners; and they are often more accurate language learners; whereas if learners can learn more effectively being able to respond immediately and to take risks, they are impulsive learners; and they are often more fluent language learners.

Kolb (1984) categorizes his experiential learning model of perception (concrete experiences and abstract conceptualization) and process (reflective observation and active experimentation) into four learner types which are converger, diverger, assimilator, and accommodator. Converger (common sense learner) learns more effectively when she or he is able to perceive abstractly and to process actively. Diverger (innovative learner) learns more effectively when she or he is able to perceive concretely and to process reflectively. Assimilator (analytic learner) learns more effectively when she or he is able to perceive abstractly and to process reflectively. Accommodator (dynamic learner) learns more effectively when she or he is able to perceive concretely and to process actively. Sensory Learning Styles

According to Reid (1995), sensory learning styles include two dimensions:

Perceptual learning styles and environmental learning styles. Perceptual learning styles contain four types of learning styles which are auditory, visual, tactile and kinesthetic styles. Auditory learners learn more effectively through the ears; visual learners learn more effectively through the eyes (seeing); tactile learners learn more effectively through touch (hands-on); kinesthetic learners learn more effective through concrete complete body experiences (whole-body movement). Physical and sociological styles belong to the environmental learning styles. Physical learners learn more effectively when such variables as temperature, sound, light, food, mobility, time, and classroom/study arrangement are considered. Sociological learners learn more effectively when such variables as group, individual, pair and team work, or levels of teacher authority are considered. Affective/Temperament Learning Styles

Learning styles of this type are based on affect, personality, tolerance of ambiguity and brain hemisphere. Myer and Briggs (1987, cited in Reid, 1995) report that affective and personality factors influence learners’ learning styles a great deal. Mayer-Briggs team tested four dichotomous styles of functioning in their Mayer and Briggs Temperament Styles (MBTI) which include extraversion-introversion, sensing-perception, thinking-feeling, and judging-perceiving. According to Reid (1995), extroverted and introverted styles belong to extraversion-introversion. Extroverted learner learns more effectively through concrete experience, contract with the outside world, and relationships with others; whereas introverted learner learns more effectively in individual, independent situations that are more involved with ideas and concepts. Sensing-perception contains sensing and perception styles. Sensing learner learns more effectively from reports of observable facts and happenings; prefers physical, sense-based input. Conversely, perception learner learns more effectively from meaningful experiences and from relationships with others. In thinking-feeling styles, thinking learner learns more effectively from impersonal circumstances and logical consequence; whereas feeling learner learns more effectively from personalized circumstances and social values. And in judging-perceiving styles, judging learner learns more effectively by reflection, and analysis, and processes that involve closure; conversely, perceiving learner learns more effectively through negotiation, feeling, and inductive processes that postpone closure.

Reid (1995) suggests that tolerance of ambiguity styles also belong to the affective/temperament learning styles. Ambiguity-tolerant learner learns more effectively when opportunities for experiment and risk, as well as interaction, are present; whereas ambiguity-intolerant learners learns more effectively when in less flexible, less risky, more structured situations.

Reid (1995) also claims that whether the learner is left-brained or right-brained will influence learner’s learning styles. Left-brained learners tend toward visual, analytic, reflective, self-reliant learning; conversely, right-brained learners tend toward auditory, global/relational, impulsive, interactive learning.

2.1.3 Oxford’s Language Learning Styles Theory

Oxford and Burry-stock (1995) put forward the most significant styles for ESL/EFL learning which include global/analytic, field-independent/field-dependent, feeling/thinking, impulsive/reflective, intuitive-random/concrete-sequential, closure-oriented/open, extroverted/introverted, and visual/auditory/hands-on styles. They suggest that each style preference offers significant benefits for learning and that the important thing for learners is to identify the style preferences and to apply them whenever possible.

Oxford (1991, cited in Kang Shumin, 2003) groups all the above learning styles into three categories: sensory learning styles (visual, auditory, and hands-on), cognitive learning styles (intuitive-random and concrete-sequential, closure-oriented/open and global/analytic), and personality learning styles (extroverted and introverted). Sensory Learning Styles

  • Visual styles
  • Visual students enjoy reading and they prefer material in a classroom environment to be presented in a visual format such as books, board work, and handouts.

  • Auditory styles
  • Auditory students enjoy lectures, conversations and oral directions. They prefer material in a classroom environment that is presented as auditory input such as radio, oral instruction, oral communication and audiotape.

  • Hands-on styles
  • Hands-on students like lots of movement and enjoy working with collages, flashcards, and tangible objects. They prefer to be physically involved with tasks, tending to prefer activities such as Total physical Response (TPR) and role-play.

    Oxford et al (1992) find that sensory preferences (visual, auditory, and hands-on) are very important in the multicultural ESL/EFL classroom. Reid (1987) also argues that ESL/EFL students from different cultures vary significantly in their sensory preferences. Those with Asian cultural backgrounds, for instance, are often highly visual, while Hispanics tend to be auditory. Students from non-Western cultures where hands-on experiences are valued often prefer a corresponding learning style.

Read also  Plagiarism and student's cultural differences Cognitive Learning Styles

  • Intuitive-random/concrete-sequential styles
  • Intuitive-random ESL/EFL students prefer to develop a mental picture of the second language in an abstract, random manner in search of the underlying language system. In the absence of comprehensive knowledge of the target language, intuitive-random style learners typically employ speculative and predictive strategies.

    Concrete-sequential ESL/EFL students prefer rigidly performed, strictly planned and adhered to sequential classes. They like language learning materials and techniques that involve combinations of sound, movement, sight, and touch, and that can be applied in a concrete, sequential, linear manner.

  • Closure-Oriented/Open-oriented styles
  • Closure-oriented ESL/EFL students perform more effectively if presented with structured activities and more time. Typically, they favor carefully planned and completed tasks, as opposed to ambiguity and uncertainty in a classroom environment.

    Open-oriented ESL/EFL students favor a more open and flexible schedule, demonstrating a high degree of tolerance towards ambiguity in the classroom. Typically, they approach a language assignment or a class activity as though it were an entertaining game, and they do not worry about not comprehending everything, and do no feel the need to come to rapid conclusions about the topic.

  • Global/Analytic Styles
  • The global style ESL/EFL students typically employ a holistic view early in the learning process, into which they fit more detailed information as learning progresses. They typically look at several aspects of the topic at the same time, constantly making corrections between the theoretical aspects and practical applications as they learn, and make substantial use of analogies. Moreover this type of learner employs holistic strategies to solve problems including guessing and paraphrasing, favoring a search for the general idea rather than for accuracy. Ellis (1989) argues that “global learners” prefer experiential learning and learning through communication.

    The analytic style ESL/EFL students have no trouble picking out significant details from a welter of background items. They typically focus their attention more narrowly on pieces of information, how in the hierarchical structure, preferring detail rather than the overall picture. They are orientated towards rules tending to focus on step-by-step presentation of material. Typically, theoretical and practical aspects are learned separately. Moreover, this type of learner employs language strategies that favor exact wording rather than guessing or paraphrasing-in their aim of achieving accuracy. Ellis (1989) suggests that “analytic learners” prefer formal, individual learning in a classroom environment. Personality Learning Styles

  • Extroversion/Introversion
  • The dimension of styles particularly influences classroom management, especially grouping of students. Extroverted students perform most productively in a group environment, enjoying activities that involve other students, such as role-play, conversation and other interaction favoring social goals as opposed to impersonal rewards. Conversely, introverted students are stimulated most by their own inner world of ideas and feelings. They like working alone or else in a pair with someone they know well. They dislike lots of continuous group work in the ESL/EFL classroom. This contrast is somewhat similar to the categories of group/individual style made by Reid (1987).

2.2 Gender Differences in Language Learning Styles

Many investigations show that males and females learn differently. Where do the gender differences come from? Several sources can be postulated for gender differences in language learning styles. Among these are brain hemisphericity and socialization.

2.2.1 Gender Differences in Brain Hemisphericity

According to Oxford (2002), brain hemisphericity or lateralization (right, left and integrated) is a feature of many learning style surveys. Research on the two cerebral hemispheres indicates that each hemisphere may be responsible for a particular mode of thinking. The left hemisphere is associated with logical, analytical thought, with mathematical and linear processing of information. The right hemisphere perceives and remembers visual, tactile and auditory images and it is more efficient in processing holistic, integrative and emotional information (Brown, 1994). Each hemisphere deals with language differently. According to Willing (1988, cited in Oxford, 2002), right-hemisphere-dominant individuals–those whose right side of the brain typically dominates their thinking processes–tend to be more field dependent (less able to separate the details from a confusing background), global, and emotion-oriented. Willing (1988) and Leaver (1986) (cited in Oxford, 2002) claim that left-hemisphere-dominant people–those whose dominant brain hemisphere is the left–are more field-independent, analytic, and logical-oriented.

Some researchers such as Spring & Deutsch (1989) and Elias (1992) (cited in Oxford, 2002) find several sources of gender differences in brain dominance:

  • In men, the left hemisphere might be more lateralized (specialized) for verbal activity and the right hemisphere may be more lateralized for abstract or spatial processing.
  • Women might use both the left and the right hemispheres for both verbal and spatial activity, thus showing more integrated brain functioning and less hemispheric differentiation.
  • In women as compared to men, part of the corpus callosum (the bundle of brain fibers linking the left and right hemispheres) is bigger in relation to overall brain weight, allowing more information to be exchanged between the two hemispheres.
  • Based on such research findings, Oxford (2002) postulates that males might usually process language learning information more readily through the left-hemispheric, analytic mode, but females might more often process language learning data through an integration of left-and right-hemispheric modes. However, other researchers (e.g., Fausto-Sterling, 1985, cited in Oxford, 2002) oppose the idea that brain hemispheres are more integrated in females than in males or that brain hemispheric differences can make a significant difference. The prevailing opinion seems to be that there are indeed gender differences in brain hemisphericity that deserve consideration and further exploration. And our understanding of language learning style–for both ESL and foreign languages–would benefit if these differences were explored. (Oxford, 2002)

2.2.2 Gender Differences in Socialization

According to Tan (1995), the difference between males and females is a result of both nature and nurture. The explanation of gender differences that ignore sociological factors is incomplete. Oxford (2002) claims that socialization which is the way we bring up our young and integrate them into society through a vast network of social roles might also be a great influence on gender differences in language learning styles. Through gender socialization, different behaviors and attitudes are encouraged and discouraged in men and women. Parents respond differently to boy babies and girl babies from the first hour of life, and after that teach their children “sex-appropriate” behaviors (Bern, 1974, cited in Oxford, 2002). Socialization process takes place not only within family, but also within school. School exercises much influence on the creation of gendered attitudes and behaviors. In school, teachers support the previous socialization patterns, paying more attention to aggressive, disruptive boys than to girls with identical behavior, and responding to passive and dependent girls–although teachers prefer the behavior of girls (Serbin & O’Leary, 1975, cited in Oxford, 2002). In school, curriculum materials, teachers expectations, educational tracking, and peer relations encourage girls and boys to learn gender-related skills and self-concepts.

2.3 Relationship between Learning Styles and Foreign Language Learning

Ellis (1994) points out that all learners analyze input and store information about the L2 in much the same way. However, he also admits that it is true that learners vary enormously in both the way they set about leaning an L2 and also in what they actually succeed in learning. Therefore, he regards the study of individual learner differences (IDs) as an important area of work in second language acquisition (SLA) research. He (1994:473) sets up a basic framework for investigating individual learner differences to guide the examinations of IDs.

2.3.1 Framework for Investigating Individual Learner Differences

In his framework for investigating individual learner differences, Ellis (1994: 473) identifies three sets of interrelating variables (see Figure 2.1). The first set consists of IDs, which are of three main types: beliefs about language learning, affective states and general factors. General factors include age, language aptitude, learning style, motivation and personality. The second set of variables consists of the different strategies that a learner employs to learn and use the L2. The learner strategies encompass learning strategies and use strategies. The third set concerns language learning outcomes which can be considered in terms of overall L2 proficiency, achievement with regard to L2 performance on a particular task, and rate of acquisition. The inner part of the triangle is learning processes and mechanisms, so positioned for they are largely hidden.

These three sets of variables are interrelated. ID research until now has concentrated on investigating the effects of different ID variables on learner proficiency, achievement, or rate of progress, measured in terms of performance on some kind of language test (Ellis, 1994). “The general factors constitute major areas of influences on learning and can be ranged along a continuum according to how mutable they are” (Ellis, 1994: 472). According to Liu Runqing (1995) and Ellis (1994) the main general factors that have received the most attention in SLA research are age, language aptitude, learning style, motivation and personality. Learners’ beliefs and affective states are likely to have a direct effect on L2 learning, but they themselves may be influenced by a number of general factors relating to learners’ ability and desire to learn and the way they choose to go about learning (Ellis, 1994).

Individual learner differences-beliefs about language learning-affective states -general factors Learning processes N and mechanisms(2)(3) Learner strategies , Language learning outcomes-on proficiency-on achievement-on rate of acquisition

2.3.2 The Role of Learning Styles in Foreign Language Learning

Reid (1995) provides some fundamentals of learning styles. She claims that learning styles in the ESL/EFL classrooms is based on six hypotheses: (1) Every person, students and teachers alike, has a learning style and learning strengths and weaknesses; (2) Learning styles are often described as opposite, but actually they exist on wide continuum; (3) Learning styles are value-neutral; that is, no one style is better than others (but it is true that there are students with some learning styles work better than those with some other learning styles); (4) Students must be encouraged to “stretch” their learning styles so that they will be more empowered in a variety of learning situations; (5) Students’ strategies are often linked to their learning styles; (6) Teachers should allow their students to become aware of their learning strengths and weaknesses.

McCarthy (1980) claims that the learning styles theory impacts education in the following three aspects: instruction, curriculum and assessment.

    (1) Instruction–Teachers should design their instruction methods to connect with students’ learning styles, using various combinations of experience, reflection, conceptualization, and experimentation. Instructors can introduce a wide variety of experiential elements into the classroom, such as sound, music, visuals, movement, experience, and even talking.

    (2) Curriculum–Educators must place emphasis on intuition, feeling, sensing, and imagination, in addition to the traditional skills of analysis, reason, and sequential problem solving.

    (3) Assessment–Teachers should employ a variety of assessment techniques, focusing on the development of “whole brain” capacity and each of the different learning styles.

    Ellis (1994) concludes that learners clearly differ enormously in their preferred approach to L2 learning, but it is impossible to say which learning style works best. And quite possibly it is learners who display flexibility who are most successful, but there is no real evidence yet for such a conclusion.

Read also  Learning strategies and styles

2.4 Previous Researches on Learning Styles and Foreign Language Learning Abroad and Home

2.4.1 Previous Researches Done in the West

When learning styles were initially introduced, the distinction between field independence (FI) and field dependence (FD) has attracted the most attention in SLA research (Ellis, 1994). The results of many studies show that people tend to be dominant in one mode of Fl/FD or the other. According to Ellis (1989), both FI/FD learners can gain language success in SLA and the embedded-figures tests have little or no relationships with the language achievement. Brown (2002) provides an explanation that FI may be important to both classroom learning and performance on paper-and-pencil tests and he believes that FI/FD is considered to be contextualized and variable within one person. In other words, the utilization of FI or FD of individual learners depends on the context of learning. Nevertheless, no evidence has been found to prove such consideration.

Meanwhile, many researchers study individual’ learning style preferences from other dimensions. The following are some of the most representative ones.

Dunn (1975, cited in Tan Dingliang, 1995: 19-20) develops the Learning Style Inventory. The learning style elements identified in the SLI are: 1) Environmental stimulus which includes the individual learner’s preference toward a quiet or noisy environment, a formal or casual seating design, and the preference of light and temperature. 2) Emotional stimulus. This domain mainly concerns whether individual learner possesses a high degree of motivation, persistence and responsibility as well as whether he prefers highly structured learning materials. 3) Sociological stimulus. This category contains factors such as whether individual learner prefers to study as a member of a team and whether he depends on authority to confirm his judgment and whether he likes to study in routines. 4) Physiological stimulus. This sort contains the perceptual preferences of individual learner, i.e., his tendency to auditory, visual, tactile or kinesthetic patterns and his mobility while learning and his tendency to the time of learning such as morning and afternoon. According to Kinsella (1994, cited in Reid, 2002), Dunn and Dunn add the psychological stimulus in 1979. This category contains the individual learner’s preference toward right or left hemisphere learning style which includes factors such as analytical/global, reflective/impulsive learning styles, etc. The Dunn’s model is very important for it representing the complexity of variables which potentially influence students’ distinct approaches to learning comprehensively. Many researchers developed their studies based on Dunn’s model.

Reid (1987) classifies learners into six different types in accordance of their style differences, namely, visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile, group and individual types. Based on her own theory, Reid conducts a study in 1987 to investigate the preferred learning styles of students with different language backgrounds. The research reports that learners’ preferences often differ significantly from those of native speakers of US. They show a general preference for kinesthetic and tactile learning styles (with the exception of the Japanese), and they view group learning style as a negative one. Proficiency level is irrelevant to learning style preferences. However, no matter which background a learner comes from, the longer he stays in the US, the more his learning styles resemble the native speakers. Melton (1990) uses Reid’s Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire to examine the six learning styles of 331 Chinese EFL students ranging from university to middle school. The research findings are: Chinese EFL students show multiple preferences for learning styles, and their most preferred style is tactile learning style and the least one is group learning style.

Still based on Reid’s Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire, Stebbins (2002) expands the Reid’s work in an effort to demonstrate a relationship between cultural backgrounds and perceptual learning styles through longitudinal stability. The results of his study parallel Reid’s results in several areas: kinesthetic and tactile learning styles are strongly preferred by ESL students when compared to native English speakers; group learning is again chose as the least preferred mode by most native English speakers and ESL students; the only sample group in the study showing a preference for the group learning mode were those ESL students with low (300-349) TOEFL scores. Spanish speakers repeat their strong preference for the kinesthetic styles. Arabic and Korean students show stability in their choice of multiple learning styles.

A number of studies have highlighted the effect of culture on the learning styles of ESL/EFL students. Liu and Littlewood (1997) find that “listening to the teacher” is the most frequent activity in Chinese senior school English classes. They claim that traditional EFL teaching in most Asian countries is dominated by teacher-centered, book-centered, grammar-translation method and an emphasis on rote memory, which have resulted in a number of typical learning styles, with introverted learning being one of them. Sue and Kirk (1972) find that most Asian students are less autonomous, more dependent on authority figures and more obedient and conforming to rules and deadlines, which lead to closure-oriented learning style for them. Nelson (2002) introduces the differences between middle-class U.S. public school educational techniques (which are FI, analytical, and visual) and native Hawaiian and native American learning styles (which are FD, global, and kinesthetic). Her research results demonstrate that culture such as a learner’s background knowledge, prior educational experiences, cultural traditions, and socialization can influence the way students learn. Some researchers investigate the impact of gender differences on language learning styles. Lawrance (1982) and Jones (1986) (cited in Yu Xinle, 1997) find that there is a significant difference between male and female students’ learning style preferences. Oxford (2002) discusses gender differences in sensory preference, FI/FD, reflection/impulsivity, objective/impersonal styles and subjective/empathic styles respectively. She (2002) reports that compared with women, men are somewhat more field-independent, analytic, objective, and logically minded in processing language and in other areas of life, while women have been found to tend toward being more field-sensitive, globally patterned, subjective, and capable of using emotions. However, gender differences in learning styles still need to be studied systematically.

There are still many researches concerning the learning style in foreign language learning domain, which cannot be presented exhaustively in this thesis.

2.4.2 Previous Studies Conducted in China

In comparison with the investigation into learning styles abroad, domestic study is much later. In the past decades, the study of learning styles has been regarded subject to the study of cognitive styles. And the domain of learning styles is relatively less explored in China compared with the other individual variables. Until now, most of the studies on learning styles are restricted to the theoretical discussion, mostly with the emphasis on its significance in shedding light on the foreign language teaching and introduction of the dimension of this construct (Tan Dingliang, 1995; Ye Jianping, 1999; Li Guangchao, 2000; Su Fengchao & Lu Junmei, 2000; etc).

There are still some empirical researches concerning learning styles of Chinese students in China. Modifying Reid’s inventory, professor Wang Churning (1992) investigates 490 English majors ranging from freshmen to seniors in English Department of Guangdong Foreign Language Studies. He finds that the average score in learning style questionnaire is higher than that in Reid’s investigation; Chinese EFL students show multiple preferences for learning styles.

Chapter 5 Conclusions Implications and Limitations

The findings discussed in the previous chapters are reviewed and concluded in this chapter, and then pedagogical implications are explored and suggested. Based on the findings of the present research, recommendations for further research are also made in this chapter.

5.1 Conclusions

The intentions of current research were to investigate the vocational school non-English majors’ general learning style preferences, the preference differences between male and female students and the relationship between learning styles and their foreign language achievement. The author of the study used Oxford’s SAS to examine learning style preferences of 102 non-English sophomores who major in computer, civil engineering and automation in Shi Jiazhuang Railway Vocational and Technique College of Hebei Province. Independent-Sample T Test was used to examine the learning style preferences of different genders. And the Pearson correlation study between students’ learning styles and their foreign language achievement was based on students’ scores in CET-4 test. According to the analysis of the quantitative data in this research, the following conclusions could be drawn to provide basic answers to the research questions stated in chapter one.

Firstly, there are a great variety of learning styles distributing among the Chinese vocational school non-English majors. Their favorite one in sensory learning styles is visual style; from personality learning styles dimension, they prefer introverted style to extroverted style, and the extroverted style is the least preferable one among the eleven learning styles; from cognitive learning styles dimension, they prefer intuitive-random, closure-oriented, and global styles.

Secondly, there are significant links between gender and learning style preferences. The research shows that male non-English majors of vocational school prefer hands-on style than their female counterparts, whereas female students like closure-oriented style better.

Thirdly, in the investigation on correlation between learning styles and foreign language achievement, no significant relationship is found.

5.2 Pedagogical Implications of This Study

This study shows that non-English majors of vocational school have a variety of learning style preferences. Reid (1987) suggests that students who prefer more learning styles are more successful learners because they have more channels to obtain knowledge. If teachers are aware of this characteristic and try to adopt various teaching styles to match them, most students can learn by using their suitable styles and become more successful language learners. From the above study, we can get the following implications.

Firstly, teachers should try to identify and meet students’ learning style preferences. Sims and Sims (1995) suggest that identifying students’ learning style and providing appropriate instruction contribute to more effective learning. Since current study shows that visual style is the most favorite style of non-English majors of vocational school in sensory learning styles dimension, teachers should provide more visual input and give students information in written forms such as handouts and worksheets. Kirby (1979, cited in Eliason, 2002: 29) finds that students with greater learning-style flexibility are greater achievers. Although visual style is the favorite one, some learners may learn best if there is a combination of visual, hands-on and auditory. Thus to meet students’ learning style preference, teachers may organize the lesson with different learning tasks which can reinforce different students’ learning style preference.

From personality learning styles dimension, the study shows that vocational school non-English majors prefer introverted style to extroverted one. However, with the popularization of communicative approach and task-based teaching method, introverted style is considered not good for students’ foreign language learning. Thus, teachers should help students form extroverted learning style. Teachers may organize group-oriented and collaborative learning activities. In addition, it’s better to do some in-class activities such as discussions, debates, role-plays, and games.

From cognitive learning styles dimension, the present research shows that non-English majors of vocational school prefer intuitive-random, closure-oriented, and global styles. Intuitive-random students like to create theories and new possibilities, often have sudden insights, and like to guide their own learning. However, there are also some students with concrete-sequential style. Thus the key to meet students’ preferences is to offer variety and choices: sometimes a highly organized structure for concrete-sequential students and other times multiple options and enrichment activities fir intuitive-random students. Closure-oriented students are serious and hardworking; and they like to be given written information and enjoy specific tasks with deadlines. Such kind of students is influenced by the traditional teaching mode. However, as the communicative teaching approach is becoming more and more popular, this kind of students may lose their ways in communicative classroom setting. Therefore, teachers should consciously create cooperative groups which also include students with open style who take English learning less seriously and dislike deadlines. These two types of students can benefit from collaboration with each other. Global students like getting the main idea and avoid analysis of grammatical precise details. As mentioned above, teachers should also create opportunities for global students and analytic students to cooperate with each other. Global students emphasize generality while analytic students concern for specificity. They can learn from each other.

Read also  The importance of vocabulary knowledge

Secondly, both students and teachers should accept gender-related differences and use style results in learning instruction. Since current research shows that gender differences do exist in non-English majors’ learning style preferences, language teachers and students should accept gender-related differences that appear in the style assessments. Oxford (2002) suggests that all participants should feel free to discuss these differences openly, bringing up any sociocultural (and perhaps biological) influences that might have helped create any contrasts between males and females. Teachers can vary their instructional techniques to meet the needs of students with contrasting styles of learning. An important suggestion is to provide a wide range of activities teachers might also try using an imposed “wait time” that requires or encourages impulsive or dominating students (often males) to reflect before responding; giving reflective students (often females) lots of opportunity to think and ask questions before responding (Oxford, 2002). Teachers may employ style results in preparing a language learning environment that accommodates males and females alike. The learning environment can establish the class as inclusive, welcoming everyone.

Thirdly, teachers should match their teaching styles to students’ learning styles. The current study does not find any significant relationship between vocational school non-English majors’ learning styles and their English achievement. However, some previous researches have found that different styles contribute differently to English achievement. Therefore, students should learn to use the styles that may facilitate and promote successful learning, and avoid using of the styles that have negative influences on particular learning task; teachers should change their own styles and strategies, and provide a variety of learning experiences to meet the needs of different learning styles. Teachers’ identification of their own style preferences may facilitate student learning by more closely matching student preferences with teacher practice (Stebbins, 2002). Then all students will have at least some activities that appeal to them based on their own learning styles, and they are more likely to be successful in these activities. Hence, it is important for those English teachers to adjust their own teaching style to accommodate the styles that are preferred by most students.

Teachers should help students expose to alternative styles and encourage them to identify the merits and flaws of their styles. Students whose preferences are different from the teachers’ can be at a disadvantage both in task orientation and in interaction with the teacher (Stebbins, 2002). Thus, teachers should not only match teaching styles with students’ learning styles, but also help students to stretch their learning styles.

However, it is very difficult to match instruction to every learner’s need. What the teacher should do is to make their teaching styles flexible to maximize opportunities for all the students with different learning style preferences. The flexibility of style matching can be increased by multimedia instruction. By using multimedia, lessons may be presented both visually and verbally and reinforced through various motivating language activities. In this way, students can learn in ways that best suit their styles and develop their modality strengths. According to Kang Shumin (1999), the appropriate use of multimedia, like video recording, slide presentation, overhead projection, together with selective hands-on activities, has made lessons interesting and motivating to students.

5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies

As shown previously, the present investigation has yielded fruitful findings. Nevertheless, weaknesses and limitations are unavoidable. The first limitation lies in the questionnaire. Only Oxford’s SAS survey was used in this study and the items of the questionnaire can not cover all the learning style knowledge and learning style categories. Moreover, in this study, the author used a Chinese version of Oxford’s questionnaire, which might have caused some misinterpretation resulting from the cross-language translation. Future studies on learning styles can be conducted both quantitatively and qualitatively. Other instruments like diary, journals and interviews can serve as the complementary tools to investigate students’ learning styles.

Secondly, the subjects in this study are the college sophomores, who confined the findings to a static level; whether there are some dynamic changes during the whole stages of their college learning is unknown. Longitudinal investigation is necessary to figure out the possible learning styles changes.

Thirdly, the subjects are from one vocational school, thus generality of the results may be quite limited. Future research is needed to more fully explore the learning styles in a variety of educational contexts.


Brown, H. D. 1994. Teaching by Principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Brown, H. D., 2002. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Carson, J. 2002. Focus on learning styles and strategies: a diary study in an immersion setting. Language Learning, 52(2), 401-438. Chapelle, C. 1988. Field independence: A source of language variance? Language Testing, 5, 62-82. Chapelle, C. 1995. Field-dependence/field-independence in the second language classroom. In Reid, J. (ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers. Claxton, C. & Murrell, P. 1987. Learning styles: Implications for improving the educational process. (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4). Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Claxton, C. & Ralson, Y. 1978. Learning styles: Their impact on teaching and administration. (AAHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 10). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. 1978. Teaching Students through their Individual Learning Styles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. 1979. Identifying individual learning styles. In J. Keefe (ed.), Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs. (pp. 39-54). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Dunn, Rita. 1986. Learning Style: State of the Science. Theory into Practice. 23, 10-19. Dunn, R,. Beaudry, J. S., & Klavas, A. 1989. Survey of research on learning styles.

Educational Leadership, 6, 50-57.

Dunn, Rita. 2000. Learning styles: Theory, research, and practice. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal.13 (1), 3-22. Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. 1990. Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 74, 31 1-327. Eliason, Patricia A. 2002. Difficulties with Cross-Cultural Learning-Styles Assessment. In Brown. H. D (e d.). Teaching by Principles: an Interactive Approach to language pedagogy. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Ellis, R. 1989. Classroom learning styles and effect on second language acquisition: a study of two learners. System, 17, 249-262. Ellis, R. 1994. Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garger, S. & Guild, P. 1985. Learning styles: The crucial differences. Curriculum Review, 23, 9-12. Johnson, Keith. 2002. An Introduction to Foreign Language Leaning and Teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Jung Zukang. 2002. Foreword. In Reid. J. (ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Beijing: foreign language teaching and research press. Keefe, J. W. 1979. Learning Styles: An overview. In J. W. Keefe (ed.), Student learning styles: diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 1-! 7). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Keefe, J. W. & Monk, J. S. 1986. Learning Style Profile Examiner Manual. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Kinsella, K. 1994. Perceptual Learning Styles Survey. Kinsella, Kate. 1996. Designing group work that supports and enhances diverse classroom work styles. TESOL Journal. 1, 24-31. Kinsella, Kate. 2002. Understanding and Empowering Diverse Learners in the ESL Classroom. In Brown. H. D (ed.). Teaching by Principles: an Interactive Approach to language pedagogy. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood, Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Liu, N. F. and Littlewood, W. 1997. Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom learning discourse? System, 25(3), 371-384. Liu Runqing. 1995. Schools of Linguistics. Beijing: foreign language teaching and research press. McCarthy, B. 1980. The 4MAT (r) system: Teaching to learning styles with right/left mode techniques. Barrington, IL: EXCEL. Melton, C. 1990. Bridging the cultural gap: A study of Chinese students’ learning style preferences. RELC Journal, 21(1), 29-47. Messick, S. 1984. The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promises in educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 59-74. Myers, I. B. & Briggs, P. B. 1987. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Polo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Nelson, Gayle L. 2002. Culture differences in learning styles. In Reid. J. (ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. (pp. 3-18). Beijing: foreign language teaching and research press.

Oxford, R. 1985. Second language learning strategies: what the research has to say. BRIC/CLL Bulletin. 9(1), 1, 3-4. Oxford, R. L.1990. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House/Harper and Row. Oxford, R., & Lavine, R. Z. 1991. Teacher-student “style wars” in the language classroom: Research insights and suggestions. Bulletin of the Association of Departments offoreign languages, 23(2), 38-45. Oxford, R., L. Hollaway, M. E., & Horton-Murillo, D. 1992. Language learning styles and strategies in the multicultural, tertiary L2 classroom. System, 20(3), 439-456. Oxford, R.L. 1993. La difference continue…:gender differences in second/foreign language learning styles and strategies. In J. Sunderland (eds), Exploring gender: Questions for English language education. 140-147. Englewoon cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Oxford, R. L. and Burry-Stock, J. A. 1995. Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for

Language Learning (SILL). System, 23(1), 1-23. Oxford, R. L. 2002. Gender differences in language learning styles: What do they mean? In Reid (ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. (PP. 48-62). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Reid, J. M. 1984. Perceptual Learning Styles Preference Questionnaire. Reid, J. M. 1987. The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (1), 87-ill. Reid, J. M. 1995. Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers. Reid, J, M. 2002. Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Renzulli, Joseph S. & David Yun Dai. 2001. Abilities, Interests, and Styles as Aptitudes for Learning: A Person-Situation Interaction Perspective. In Sternberg, R. & Zhang. L. (eds.), Perspectives on Thinking, Learning and Cognitive Styles (pp. 23-46). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Richard, J.E., & Platt, H. (eds.) 1992. Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (2″d ed.). Essex, England: Longman Group UK Limited. 

Rossi-Le, L. 2002. Learning Styles and Strategies in Adult Immigrant ESL Students. In Reid, J (eds.). Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. (pp. 118-125). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 

Schmeck, R. R. (ed.), 1988. Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press. 

Sims, R. & Sims, S. 1995. Learning and learning style: A review and look to the future. In Sims, R. & Sims, S. (eds.). The Importance of Learning Styles: Understanding the Implications for Learning, Course Design, and Education.

Westport: Greenwood Press. Song, B. 1995. What does reading mean for East Asian students? College ESL, 5(2), 35-48.

Stebbins, C. 2002. Culture Specific Perceptual Learning Style Preferences of Postsecondary Students of English as a Second Language. In Reid, .1 (eds.).

Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. (pp. 108-117).

Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 

Stern, H. H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Sue, D. W. and Kirk, B. A. 1972. Psychological characteristics of Chinese-American students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19, 471-478. 

Williams, M & Burden, R. L. 2000. Psychology for Language Teachers. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Order Now

Order Now

Type of Paper
Number of Pages
(275 words)